Spaniards, Terrorism and Iraq - the BS doth flyeth

[Napalm]

I'll make it short since there are many Spanish threads dealing with the recent attack:

It makes me laugh (no, seriously...) that many in this newsgroup and throughout the US are painting the Spanish elections as a capitulation on the war on terrorism. One should remind the neo-cons that nobody has ever drawn a credilbe link between the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. Not Bush, not Rummy, not Condi, not Cheney - no one. As such, pulling troops out of Iraq has everything to do with punishing a leader who sent troops to invade Iraq against the will of the people, and nothing to do with capitulation on the war on terror.


To those who think otherwise, please remind us all about the links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

N

 

[etech]

Are you saying that since the Palestinians suicide bombers are not part of Al Queada that they are not terrorists?

Are you saying that unless you are a member of Al Queada that you cannot be a terrorist?

 

[Witling]

Here we go again, Etech. I interpret Napalm's point as being, no creditable connection has been shown between Iraq and the criminals (you would say terrorists) who attacked us. Since the two are not effectively related, why invade Iraq to fight terrorism. Since the Spanish interpret invading Iraq as being significaltly different from fighting terrorism, leaving Iraq doesn't capitulate to terrorism. The Spanish people were overhwhelmingly against invading Iraq. The government went ahead anyway.

Please explain where the Palestinians fit into what Naplam said. The connection isn't obvious to me. Of course there are terrorists who are not members of Al Queda, but the nation of Iraq or even Saddam Hussein have not been shown to be such terrorists.

 

[Napalm]

etech:

Read my post again - I think it was quite clear.

N

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Napalm
etech:

Read my post again - I think it was quite clear.

N

Napalm, read mine again.

The questions were quite clear. Will you answer them?


Witling

So terrorists are ok as long as they don't attack "US".

Got it.

 

[Passions]

Originally posted by: Napalm
I'll make it short since there are many Spanish threads dealing with the recent attack:

It makes me laugh (no, seriously...) that many in this newsgroup and throughout the US are painting the Spanish elections as a capitulation on the war on terrorism. One should remind the neo-cons that nobody has ever drawn a credilbe link between the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. Not Bush, not Rummy, not Condi, not Cheney - no one. As such, pulling troops out of Iraq has everything to do with punishing a leader who sent troops to invade Iraq against the will of the people, and nothing to do with capitulation on the war on terror.


To those who think otherwise, please remind us all about the links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

N

You are a terrorist.

 

[arsbanned]

That seems a bit...strong...there BOBBY.... Not to mention, WRONG, BOBBY. Now go to your room!


Etech:

Are you saying that since the Palestinians suicide bombers are not part of Al Queada that they are not terrorists?

Maybe you could point out what that has to do with the topic at hand?

 

[rchiu]

Originally posted by: etech
Are you saying that since the Palestinians suicide bombers are not part of Al Queada that they are not terrorists?

Are you saying that unless you are a member of Al Queada that you cannot be a terrorist?

So what, if some guerilla fights their government using some terror tactic, they automatically become the enemy of United State in this war on terrorism?

 

[Napalm]

Originally posted by: BOBBY RIBS

Originally posted by: Napalm
I'll make it short since there are many Spanish threads dealing with the recent attack:

It makes me laugh (no, seriously...) that many in this newsgroup and throughout the US are painting the Spanish elections as a capitulation on the war on terrorism. One should remind the neo-cons that nobody has ever drawn a credilbe link between the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. Not Bush, not Rummy, not Condi, not Cheney - no one. As such, pulling troops out of Iraq has everything to do with punishing a leader who sent troops to invade Iraq against the will of the people, and nothing to do with capitulation on the war on terror.


To those who think otherwise, please remind us all about the links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

N

You are a terrorist.

Wow.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: BOBBY RIBS

Originally posted by: Napalm
I'll make it short since there are many Spanish threads dealing with the recent attack:

It makes me laugh (no, seriously...) that many in this newsgroup and throughout the US are painting the Spanish elections as a capitulation on the war on terrorism. One should remind the neo-cons that nobody has ever drawn a credilbe link between the war on terror and the invasion of Iraq. Not Bush, not Rummy, not Condi, not Cheney - no one. As such, pulling troops out of Iraq has everything to do with punishing a leader who sent troops to invade Iraq against the will of the people, and nothing to do with capitulation on the war on terror.


To those who think otherwise, please remind us all about the links between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

N

You are a terrorist.

Is that right? Coming from an obvious tool your accusation holds little water.

 

[arsbanned]

Don't feel bad Napalm, I'll bet BOBBY even calls his MOMMY a TERRORIST when he disagrees with her!

 

[Napalm]

Originally posted by: etech
Are you saying that since the Palestinians suicide bombers are not part of Al Queada that they are not terrorists?

Are you saying that unless you are a member of Al Queada that you cannot be a terrorist?

Terrorists are terrorists regardless of whether they are Palestinians, al Queada members or other. However, the Spanish troops in Iraq are not there to fight terrorism. Mind you, according to Bush and the outgoing Spanish government they were there to stop the proliferation of WMD and to prevent an impending attack. Now, the story has changed to they are there to bring "democracy" to Iraq. Perhaps you and your neo-con friends should respect democracy in Spain and allow them to chart a course that is in line with the majority of their electorate.

N

 

[Napalm]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Don't feel bad Napalm, I'll bet BOBBY even calls his MOMMY a TERRORIST when he disagrees with her!

LOL - to call someone with whom you disagree a terrorist refects on the person doing the name calling...

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Napalm etech: Read my post again - I think it was quite clear. N

Napalm, read mine again. The questions were quite clear. Will you answer them? Witling So terrorists are ok as long as they don't attack "US". Got it.

Well, the sad answer seems to be yes. As distasteful as 'my enemies enemy is my friend' is from a moral standpoint, in the real world it is often impossible to ignore it. Foreign policy is, at root, the politics of survival, often continued by other means.

So. Usama bin Laden fighting the Russians = good (freedom fighter)
Usama bin Laden fighting the Americans = bad (terrorist)

Its very hard to define a coherent war on terrorism -easier to stick to the obvious. Some would even say that a 'war' on terrorism is not necessarily the answer. After all, the US didn't invade the republic of Ireland to wipe out the IRA, did it? No, because after 50 years of the troubles, of violence and struggles, real progress is being made by dialogue.
And what do we say about Chechnia? are the terrorists there the chechens or the russians? In real terms a terrorist seems to be a freedom fighter until he attacks you.

 

[RadBrad]

Originally posted by: Napalm credilbe link

Would you define a credilbe link as a posibility that a nuclear bomb could be dropped on your house?

Or would the bomb need to be dropped on your house to make it credilbe?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
That seems a bit...strong...there BOBBY.... Not to mention, WRONG, BOBBY. Now go to your room!


Etech:

Are you saying that since the Palestinians suicide bombers are not part of Al Queada that they are not terrorists?

Maybe you could point out what that has to do with the topic at hand?

Napalm seemed to be saying that unless you were a member of Al Queada than you were not a terrorist. Add in the fact that Saddam was paying blood money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and you have a connection.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: arsbanned
That seems a bit...strong...there BOBBY.... Not to mention, WRONG, BOBBY. Now go to your room!


Etech:

Are you saying that since the Palestinians suicide bombers are not part of Al Queada that they are not terrorists?

Maybe you could point out what that has to do with the topic at hand?

Napalm seemed to be saying that unless you were a member of Al Queada than you were not a terrorist. Add in the fact that Saddam was paying blood money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers and you have a connection.

That's a seriously weak 'connection'. What are you trying to say here, that if Saddam gave money to the families of a suicide bomber that he's supporting terrorism? Do you also think that life insurance companies giving money to widowed spouses promotes murder and therefore life insurance companies are guilty of supporting murder?

 

[alchemize]

Let me explain it to the feeble minded of you, how it is a capitulation to terror.

1) There are spanish troops in Iraq.
2) Al Qaida (allegedly) attacked Spain because of that. It was a terrorst attack.
3) Spanish voters voted out those who chose #1, in direct response to #2.
4) The newly elected party says "we are withdrawing our troops".

2 caused 3, 3 caused 4. Ergo, capitulation to terrorism. Doesn't matter if there was a 9/11 link in Iraq or not. If Spanish troops were dancing the Macarena too much, offended a terrorist group, got attacked, and quit that lovely dance, it would be capitulation as well

Any libbie who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves.

Edit, to make the libbies feel better, I called it capitulating to terror, not capitulating to the "war on terror".

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Let me explain it to the feeble minded of you, how it is a capitulation to terror.

1) There are spanish troops in Iraq.
2) Al Qaida (allegedly) attacked Spain because of that. It was a terrorst attack.
3) Spanish voters voted out those who chose #1, in direct response to #2.
4) The newly elected party says "we are withdrawing our troops".

2 caused 3, 3 caused 4. Ergo, capitulation to terrorism. Doesn't matter if there was a 9/11 link in Iraq or not. If Spanish troops were dancing the Macarena too much, offended a terrorist group, got attacked, and quit that lovely dance, it would be capitulation as well

Any libbie who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves.

Edit, to make the libbies feel better, I called it capitulating to terror, not capitulating to the "war on terror".

Umm, no.

 

[etech]

lozina

What are you trying to say here, that if Saddam gave money to the families of a suicide bomber that he's supporting terrorism?

YES.

Especially when he paid the families of suicide bombers more than someone killed in the conflict.



They don't pay off if the widow committed the murder that made her a widow. Rather bad analogy on your part.

 

[fjord]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Let me explain it to the feeble minded of you, how it is a capitulation to terror.

1) There are spanish troops in Iraq.
2) Al Qaida (allegedly) attacked Spain because of that. It was a terrorst attack.
3) Spanish voters voted out those who chose #1, in direct response to #2.
4) The newly elected party says "we are withdrawing our troops".

2 caused 3, 3 caused 4. Ergo, capitulation to terrorism. Doesn't matter if there was a 9/11 link in Iraq or not. If Spanish troops were dancing the Macarena too much, offended a terrorist group, got attacked, and quit that lovely dance, it would be capitulation as well

Any libbie who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves.

Edit, to make the libbies feel better, I called it capitulating to terror, not capitulating to the "war on terror".

Your #3) is an assumption on your part--100% --Lots of reports here in the U.S. about poll numbers supporting your opinion, but those numbers are in doubt--and likely were doctored by the Partido Politico. The last poll done by CIS, which is the official (PP run) pollster--8 days before the election had the PP getting under 39% of the vote. In the actual election the PP got slightly less than 38%. A 1% difference.

If the PP had gotten 39% of the vote, it still would not have carried the majority.

Your #4) is false. The Socialist party ran on a clear platform that among many other things--Spanish troops will be removed from Iraq to coincide with the turning over of power to Iraqis.

Someone is lying, you are correct about that.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: etech
lozina

What are you trying to say here, that if Saddam gave money to the families of a suicide bomber that he's supporting terrorism?

YES.

Especially when he paid the families of suicide bombers more than someone killed in the conflict.



They don't pay off if the widow committed the murder that made her a widow. Rather bad analogy on your part.

I think the analogy is fine. Are you goign to argue that the families sit down and talk with their son/daughter before they blow themselves up, in a planned act to get the family some money from Saddam with their kin's life? That would be pure speculation and impossible to prove. I mean, even if you were in a difficult situation, would you sacrifice your child's life to get $25,000 ? That would be almost inhuman. And from reactions I've seen and statements I've read from these families, they never knew what their son/daughter was going to do until it's too late.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: alchemize
Let me explain it to the feeble minded of you, how it is a capitulation to terror.

1) There are spanish troops in Iraq.
2) Al Qaida (allegedly) attacked Spain because of that. It was a terrorst attack.
3) Spanish voters voted out those who chose #1, in direct response to #2.
4) The newly elected party says "we are withdrawing our troops".

2 caused 3, 3 caused 4. Ergo, capitulation to terrorism. Doesn't matter if there was a 9/11 link in Iraq or not. If Spanish troops were dancing the Macarena too much, offended a terrorist group, got attacked, and quit that lovely dance, it would be capitulation as well

Any libbie who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves.

Edit, to make the libbies feel better, I called it capitulating to terror, not capitulating to the "war on terror".

The people of spain were strongly against sending troops- up to 90% supposedly. Then the rulign party ignores it's people and sends troops anyway. So their only opportunity to show their anger over this is to vote the party out. Cause and effect- easy to comprehend. Coincidentally, a terrorist attack occurs shortly before the election.

BTW- I'm just curious- do you support a regime which claims to be democratic and ignores the majority of it's own people in such a situation? Sounds like something you would normally demonize a socialist regime of doing.

 

[Mill]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: etech
lozina

What are you trying to say here, that if Saddam gave money to the families of a suicide bomber that he's supporting terrorism?

YES.

Especially when he paid the families of suicide bombers more than someone killed in the conflict.



They don't pay off if the widow committed the murder that made her a widow. Rather bad analogy on your part.

I think the analogy is fine. Are you goign to argue that the families sit down and talk with their son/daughter before they blow themselves up, in a planned act to get the family some money from Saddam with their kin's life? That would be pure speculation and impossible to prove. I mean, even if you were in a difficult situation, would you sacrifice your child's life to get $25,000 ? That would be almost inhuman. And from reactions I've seen and statements I've read from these families, they never knew what their son/daughter was going to do until it's too late.

First of all, Sadam doesn't sell insurance. Second of all, if you kill your spouse you don't get any insurance money out of it. Saddam was offering it as a reward. However, Napalm is right that people were saying Spain was withdrawing because of Al-Qaida. e-tech is throwing out a red herring. However, I disagee overall with Napalm, because I think most Spaniards feel they were attacked because they supported the war.

 

[csiro]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: alchemize
Let me explain it to the feeble minded of you, how it is a capitulation to terror.

1) There are spanish troops in Iraq.
2) Al Qaida (allegedly) attacked Spain because of that. It was a terrorst attack.
3) Spanish voters voted out those who chose #1, in direct response to #2.
4) The newly elected party says "we are withdrawing our troops".

2 caused 3, 3 caused 4. Ergo, capitulation to terrorism. Doesn't matter if there was a 9/11 link in Iraq or not. If Spanish troops were dancing the Macarena too much, offended a terrorist group, got attacked, and quit that lovely dance, it would be capitulation as well

Any libbie who thinks otherwise is lying to themselves.

Edit, to make the libbies feel better, I called it capitulating to terror, not capitulating to the "war on terror".

The people of spain were strongly against sending troops- up to 90% supposedly. Then the rulign party ignores it's people and sends troops anyway. So their only opportunity to show their anger over this is to vote the party out. Cause and effect- easy to comprehend. Coincidentally, a terrorist attack occurs shortly before the election.

BTW- I'm just curious- do you support a regime which claims to be democratic and ignores the majority of it's own people in such a situation? Sounds like something you would normally demonize a socialist regime of doing.

Weren't the PP favored to win before the election? They might have lost the majority but most likely the bombings swayed the public from a close PP win towards the socialists.